EQUITABLE PCI BANK, formerly EQUITABLE BANKING the Register of Deeds canceled the TCT in her name and
f Deeds canceled the TCT in her name and a new one was
CORPORATION
vs.
ROSITA KU
KAPUNAN, J.
SUMMARY: Litigation ensued between Rosita Ku and Equitable. When
CA ruled in favor of Rosita, Equitable filed a motion for an extension of 30
days to file its petition for review as it allegedly received the CA decision
on April 25, 2000. However, Rosita argues that the petition is defective
because Bank actually received CA decision on April 24, 2000 when Joel
Rosales, an employee of Bank’s law firm received it from the Post office
and thus Equitable should have filed motion for extension on May 9, 2000
not May 10. Equitable replied that Joel is not an agent of the bank as
expressly mentioned in his affidavit. HELD: Bank filed petition beyond
reglementary period. There was perfection of the agency as Joel Rosales
averred in his affidavit that “on 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. However, in the interest of justice,
the petition was still given due course.
DOCTRINE:
 PERFECTION FROM SIDE OF PRINCIPAL: 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.
 PERFECTION FROM SIDE OF AGENT: 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 (Art. 1870).
FACTS:
 Noddy Dairy Products Inc. incurred a loan from Equitable Banking
Corporation (now Equitable PCI Bank)
 As security, Rosita Ku, treasurer of Noddy, Inc., and Ku GiokHeng,
VP/GM of Noddy Inc. and Rosita’s father, mortgaged a residential
house and lot located in La Vista, QC which is registered in Rosita’s
name
 When Noddy, Inc. failed to pay the loan, Equitable foreclosed the
property extrajudicially and was issued a certificate of sale after
winning in the foreclosure sale. Rosita failed to redeem the property so
issued in Equitable’s name.
 May 10, ‘89: Equitable instituted an action for ejectment before MeTC
QC against Rosita’s father Ku GiokHeng.
o It allowed Ku GiokHeng to remain in the property on the
condition that the latter pay rent. However, Ku GiokHeng’s
failed to pay rent thus this action.
 Ku GiokHeng denied that there was any lease agreement over the
property.
 MeTC (Dec. 8, ‘94): In favor of Equitable and ordered Ku Giok Heng
to vacate the premises.
o No right for his continued possession of or stay as title had
been duly transferred to Equitable. Buyer in foreclosure sale
becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is
not redeemed during the period of 1 year after the registration
of the sale
 Ku GiokHeng did not appeal the decision of the MeTC.
 Dec. 20, ‘94: Instead, he and Rosita Ku, filed an action before RTC QC
to nullify the decision of the MeTC.
 RTC (Sept. 13, ‘99): No merit; Dismissed complaint and ordered the
execution of the MeTC decision.
 Rosita filed in CA a special civil action for certiorari assailing the
decision of the RTC as she was not made a party to the ejectment suit
and was, therefore, deprived of due process.
 CA (Mar. 31, 2000): Agreed with Rosita. Enjoined the eviction of
Rosita from the premises.
 May 10, 2000: Equitable filed in SC 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 as the Bank has received the CA decision
on April 25, 2000.
o April 25, 2000 – Received CA Decision (15 days
reglementary period to file petition for review OR file motion
for extension)
o May 10,2000 – Filed motion for extension for 30 days
o June 9, 2000 – w/n 30 days
 SC: 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.”
 June 13, 2000: Equitable Bank filed its petition, contending that there
was no need to name Rosita Ku as a party in the action for ejectment
 since she was not a resident of the premises nor was she in possession
of the property.
o FOOTNOTE: The last day to file the petition was on June 9,
2000 but because of the Court’s 99th Anniversary Celebration,
business transactions were suspended on said date per
Memorandum Circular No. 03-2000.
 Rosita argues that the petition is defective because of non-compliance
with reglementary period.
o Bank received CA decision not on April 25, 2000 but
on April 24, 2000
o April 24, 2000 - copy “was duly delivered to and received by
Joel Rosales (Authorized Representative)” as evidenced by
a Certification issued by the Manila Central Post Office
o May 10, 2000 – When Equitable filed its motion for extension
to file petition for review, it was 1 day beyond the
reglementary period for filing the petition for review OR
motion to extend w/c must be filed on May 9, 2000 - 15 days
from the receipt of CA decision
 Bank’s Reply: Reiterates “its honest representation of having received
a copy of CA decision on April 25, 2000.” Receipt on April 24, 2000
by Joel Rosales, who was not an agent of its counsel’s law office
cannot be considered receipt of the CA Decision by the Bank (or its
counsel).
 Rosales’ Affidavit
o Employee of Unique Industrial & Allied Services, Inc. and
assigned with the Equitable PCI Bank, Mail and Courier
Department w/ official duty and responsibility to receive and
pick-up from the Manila Central Post Office the various mails,
letters, correspondence, and other mail matters intended for
the bank’s various departments and offices at Equitable Bank
Building
o I am not the constituted agent of “Curato-Divina-Mabilog-
Nedo-Magturo-Pagaduan Law Office” for purposes of
receiving their incoming mail matters; neither am I any
such agent of the various other tenants of the said
Building. On occasions when I receive mail matters for
said law office, it is only to help them receive their letters
promptly.
o April 24, 2000: Received CA Decision together with other
mail matters, and brought them to the Mail and Courier
Department;
o April 25, 2000: After sorting out mail matters, erroneously
recorded them on page 422 of logbook as having been
received on April 25, 2000
o April 27, 2000: Decision was sent by the Mail and Courier
Department to said Law Office whose receiving clerk opened
the letter and stamped on the “Notice of Judgment” their
actual date of receipt: “April 27, 2000”
o May 8, 2000: Atty. Roland A. Niedo of said law office
inquired as to actual date of receipt of letter, and informed him
that based on logbook, it was received on April 25, 2000.
o Error was caused by an honest mistake.
 Bank also argues such receipt did not constitute notice to its counsel, as
required by Sec. 2 and 10, Rule 13 of ROC. CA decision actually
received on April 27, 2000.
o SEC. 2. Filing and service defined. – Filing is the act of
presenting the pleading or other paper of the clerk of court.
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the
pleading or paper concerned. If any party has appeared by
counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel
or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is
ordered by the court. Where one counsel appears for several
parties, he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper
served upon him by the opposite side.
o PLDT vs. NLRC: It was only when the Legal Services
Division actually received a copy of the decision that a proper
and valid service may be deemed to have been made.
o Actual receipt by its counsel was actually on April 27, 2000,
not April 25, 2000. The motion for extension to file the
petition for review was even filed 2 days before the lapse of
the 15-day reglementary period
 Assuming the motion for extension was indeed one day late, Bank
urges SC to suspend its rules and admit the petition in the interest of
justice.
ISSUES:
1) Whether Joel Rosales can be considered the agent of Bank’s counsel and
thus service to him was considered service to Bank? (YES) [Whether the
act of the law firm in allowing its employee to occasionally receive its mail the court. (Matuguina vs. CA) Nevertheless, a judgment in an ejectment
can be construed to mean an agency relationship? YES] suit is binding not only upon the defendants in the suit but also against
2) Whether, in the interest of justice, the rules on reglementary periods can those not made parties thereto, if they are:
be suspended in this case? (YES) o a) trespassers, squatters or agents of the defendant fraudulently
3) Whether a person can be evicted by virtue of a decision rendered in an occupying the property to frustrate the judgment;
ejectment case where she was not joined as a party? (YES) o b) guests or other occupants of the premises with the
RATIO: permission of the defendant;
1) Joel Rosales is an agent of Bank’s counsel. o c) transferees pendente lite;
 Although the Affidavit of Joel Rosales states that he is “not the o d) sub-lessees;
constituted agent of ‘Curato-Divina-Mabilog-Nedo-Magturo-Pagaduan o e) co-lessees; or
Law Office”, an agency may be express but it may also be implied from o f) members of the family, relatives and other privies of the
the acts of the principal, from his silence, or lack of action, or his defendant. (Oro Cam Enterprises, Inc. vs. CA)
failure to repudiate the agency, knowing that another person is acting DISPOSITIVE: Petition GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED. CA
on his behalf without authority. (Art. 1869) decision REVERSED.
 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 (Art. 1870).
 CASE AT BAR: Joel Rosales averred that “on 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.
2) Court gives due course to petition in spite of noncompliance with periods
in light of the merits of the petition.
 The perfection of an appeal within the period fixed by the rules is
mandatory and jurisdictional. But, it is always in the power of this
Court to suspend its own rules, or to except a particular case from its
operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it. Strong
compelling reasons such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a
grave miscarriage thereof warrant the suspension of the rules.
 The Court proceeded to enumerate cases where the rules on
reglementary periods were suspended (6 days; 13 days; 1 day; 7 days; 2
days; tardy appeal).
3) Even if Rosita were a resident of the property, she is nevertheless bound
by the judgment of the MeTC in the action for ejectment despite her being a
non-party thereto as the daughter of Ku GiokHeng, the defendant in the
action for ejectment.
 Generally, no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a
stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by