Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 88 views

    Philippine Savings Bank Vs Papa 2

    Uploaded by

    Juan Doe
    1) Service by ordinary mail is only allowed when neither the sender nor recipient has access to registry service. 2) PSB filed a motion for reconsideration against Papa using private courier service instead of the modes prescribed by the rules of court. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that PSB's motion for reconsideration was not effectively served because ordinary mail can only be used when no registry service is available, and failed to comply with the rules on service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Philippine Savings Bank Vs Papa 2

    Uploaded by

    Juan Doe
    88 views1 page
    1) Service by ordinary mail is only allowed when neither the sender nor recipient has access to registry service. 2) PSB filed a motion for reconsideration against Papa using private courier service instead of the modes prescribed by the rules of court. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that PSB's motion for reconsideration was not effectively served because ordinary mail can only be used when no registry service is available, and failed to comply with the rules on service.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Philippine Savings Bank vs Papa 2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Service by ordinary mail is only allowed when neither the sender nor recipient has access to registry service. 2) PSB filed a motion for reconsideration against Papa using private courier service instead of the modes prescribed by the rules of court. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that PSB's motion for reconsideration was not effectively served because ordinary mail can only be used when no registry service is available, and failed to comply with the rules on service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    88 views1 page

    Philippine Savings Bank Vs Papa 2

    Uploaded by

    Juan Doe
    1) Service by ordinary mail is only allowed when neither the sender nor recipient has access to registry service. 2) PSB filed a motion for reconsideration against Papa using private courier service instead of the modes prescribed by the rules of court. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that PSB's motion for reconsideration was not effectively served because ordinary mail can only be used when no registry service is available, and failed to comply with the rules on service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    WHEN TO RESORT TO ORDINARY MAIL

    Service by ordinary mail is allowed only in instances where no registry service exists either in the
    locality of the sender or the addressee – this is the only credible justification why resort to service by
    ordinary mail or private courier may be allowed (Philippine Savings Bank vs Papa G.R. No., 200469
    January 15, 2018)

    x—————x

    TICKLER

    Philippine Savings Bank (PSB) vs Papa


    G.R. No., 200469 January 15, 2018
    MARTIRES, J.

    FACTS:
    Petition for review on certiorari to reverse CA decision

    PSB filed a collection of sum of money against Papa arising from a loan. Respondent failed to pay
    despite repetitive attempts, she alleged that PSB had no cause of action against her since her liability
    has been extinguished due to her several staggered payments. PSB introduced photocopy evidence
    admitted by the MTC and ruled in favor of it based on preponderance of evidence. RTC reversed the
    latter.

    PSB failed to prove its cause of action due to its failure to prove the existence and due execution of
    the PN

    Papa countered that the RTC decision has already attained finality that although PSB filed an MR, it
    appears that the service was made 2 days late as PSB availed a private courier service instead of
    modes of service prescribed under the RoC

    ISSUE:
    WON the MR was served out of time

    HELD:
    Yes. PSB is correct that filing and service are distinct from each other. Filing is the act of presenting
    the pleading to the clerk of court; whereas, service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the
    pleading or paper concerned.

    Service by ordinary mail is allowed only in instances where no registry service exists either in the
    locality of the sender or the addressee – this is the only credible justification why resort to service by
    ordinary mail or private courier may be allowed.

    Filing and service go hand-in-hand and must be considered together when determining whether the
    pleading, motion, or any other paper was filed with the applicable reglementary peiod. Rules require
    every motion set for hearing to be accompanied by proof of service thereof to the other parties
    concerned; otherwise, the court shall not be allowed to act on it, effectively making such motion as not
    filed.

    Thus, PSB failed to comply with Rule 13, Section 17 for an effective service by ordinary mail. The
    reason that personal service was effected due to lack of time and personnel constraints is not an
    acceptable reason why it resorted to “private registered mail”. Thereby the RTC is correct in denying
    PSB’s MR which is considered as not filed.

    You might also like