G.R. No. 142950, 26 March 2001

FACTS:

Petitioner instituted an action for ejectment before the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) against respondent’s father Ku Giok Heng. The MeTC rendered a decision in favor of petitioner and ordered Ku Giok Heng to, among other things, vacate the premises.

Ku Giok Heng did not appeal the decision of the MeTC. Instead, he and his daughter, respondent Rosita Ku, filed an action before the Regional Trial Court to nullify the decision of the MeTC. RTC dismissed the action.

Respondent filed in the Court of Appeals (CA) a special civil action for certiorari assailing the decision of the RTC. The CA on March 31, 2000, rendered a decision enjoining the eviction of respondent from the premises.

On May 10, 2000, Equitable PCI Bank filed in this Court a motion for an extension of 30 days from May 10, 2000 or until June 9, 2000 to file its petition for review of the CA decision. The motion alleged that the Bank received the CA decision on April 25, 2000.The Court granted the motion for a 30-day extension “counted from the expiration of the reglementary period” and “conditioned upon the timeliness of the filing of [the] motion [for extension].

On June 13, 2000, Equitable Bank filed its petition.Respondent nevertheless claims that the petition is defective.Respondent insists that petitioner received the CA decision on April 24, 2000, as certified by Manila Post Office stating that the copy “was duly delivered to and received by Joel Rosales (Authorized Representative) on April 24, 2000.

Hence he has until May 9, 2000 to file the motion. But petitioner’s motion was only filed on May 10, 2000, sixteen (16) days from the receipt of the CA decision and one (1) day beyond the reglementary period.

ISSUE:

Whether receipt by Joel Rosales constitutes notice to counsel of the petitioner.

RULING:

Yes.

Petitioner argues that receipt on April 25, 2000 by Joel Rosales, who was not an agent of its counsel’s law office, did not constitute notice to its counsel, as required by Sections 2 and 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.

The Court is not wholly convinced by petitioner’s argument. The Affidavit of Joel Rosales states that he is “not the constituted agent of ‘Curato Divina MabilogNedoMagturoPagaduan Law Office.'”

An agency may be express but it may also be implied from the acts of the principal, from his silence, or lack of action, or his failure to repudiate the agency, knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without authority. Likewise, acceptance by the agent may also be express, although it may also be implied from his acts which carry out the agency, or from his silence or inaction according to the circumstances.

In this case, Joel Rosales averred that “[o]n occasions when I receive mail matters for said law office, it is only to help them receive their letters promptly,” implying that counsel had allowed the practice of Rosales receiving mail in behalf of the former. There is no showing that counsel had objected to this practice or took steps to put a stop to it.The facts are, therefore, inadequate for the Court to make a ruling in petitioner’s favor.

*Case digest by Nikki P. Ebillo, JD-4, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2019-2020