Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51678:gr-170625-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:55:14+00:00

Document:
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and TF KO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which assails the twin resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00082 and the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, General Santos City in Corporate Case No. 26. The Resolution3 dated 29 July 2005 dismissed on procedural grounds the Petition for Review filed by petitioner while the Resolution4 dated 22 November 2005 denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the earlier resolution.
Respondent is a domestic corporation primarily engaged in agricultural commerce. In 1998, it became a full-fledged subdivision developer after being granted by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) the necessary licenses which enabled it to construct low-cost housing units and to sell them to prospective buyers. To secure additional working capital for its rice milling/trading and real estate and housing construction projects, respondent obtained various loans and credit accommodations from different commercial banks, including the Far East Bank & Trust Company, petitioner's predecessor-in-interest.
Upon petitioner's motion, the RTC issued an Order12 dated 07 January 2004, enjoining creditor LBP and the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Koronadal, South Cotabato from foreclosing the real estate mortgages constituted as security for respondent's obligation with creditor LBP. The RTC also ordered all three creditor banks to file their respective opposition to the petition for rehabilitation.
Upon agreement of the parties, the RTC fixed a date for a creditors' meeting.18 On 22 March 2004, the rehabilitation receiver submitted a proposed Final Mode of Payment in compliance with the RTC's order.19 The RTC then directed creditors LBP and petitioner to file a comment or opposition thereto.
Schedule of payment for Creditors-banks indicating the principal, the interest and the total amount due for every payment which is semi-annual or 6 months for eight (8) periods with an interest rate of 12% per annum compounded annually.
The principal and interest are discharged by a sequence of equal payments due at the ends of equal intervals of time. In such a case, the payments form as annuity which present value is the original principal of the date.
3.) Creditor-Metrobank is hereby discharged from the Rehabilitation Plan of the Petitioner Corporation. The obligation of the Petitioner Corporation against Creditor-Metrobank shall be settled personally by the President of the Corporation, Mrs. Flora Ko.
4) There shall be no declaration and payment of dividends by the Petitioner Corporation until it has paid in full its loans with creditor banks.
5) The Rehabilitation program for the Petitioner Corporation shall commence this year, 2005.
6) Rehabilitation Receiver Suson is discharged from his duties and responsibilities as receiver for this Petition.
7) The Stay-Order is hereby terminated.
Petitioner filed the Petition for Review on 28 February 2005.26 Petitioner argued that the rehabilitation of respondent pursuant to the Interim Rules was no longer feasible considering that its obligations to petitioner BPI had long matured prior to the filing of the petition.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Review for the following reasons: (1) the verification and certification was not signed by the authorized person; (2) the petition was filed beyond the extended period; (3) the petition was not accompanied by pertinent documents and pleadings, in violation of Section 6(c), Rule 4330 of the Rules of Court; (4) the date of issue of counsel's Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) O.R. No. was not indicated; and (5) the docket fees for the prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction were not paid. The Court of Appeals held that the inadvertence was too lame an excuse in not complying with the rules of procedure. It also noted that petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the earlier resolution was belatedly filed, which proved fatal to petitioner's cause.
A number of the procedural errors discovered by the Court of Appeals are either not supported by the records of the case or not grounds for the dismissal of the petition. One of them is the supposed late filing of the Petition for Review . Petitioner filed the Petition for Review only on 28 February 2005 or after the last day of the extended period which was on 25 February 2005. The latter date fell on a special national holiday declared as such under Proclamation No. 785. If the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day.31 Ipso jure, the last day for filing the Petition for Review ran until 28 February 2005, the working day immediately following the last day of the period. Thus, the Petition for Review was filed on time.
Also, contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals, petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated 29 July 2005 was timely filed via registered mail and not through a private courier. When a pleading is filed through registered mail, the date of the mailing, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of its filing, payment, or deposit in court.32 The envelope containing the motion for reconsideration attached to the records of the case has a postage stamp indicating that the same was received by the Philippine Postal Corporation on 30 August 2005, the last day for filing the motion for reconsideration. Although the mail reached the Court of Appeals only on 06 September 2005, petitioner's motion for reconsideration is deemed filed upon its deposit at the post office. Accordingly, petitioner filed the motion for reconsideration on time when it deposited the same with the post office on the last day of the reglementary period.
The claim that petitioner failed to pay the docket fees for its application for temporary restraining order is negated by the records of the case. Together with the filing of the motion for extension (to file the Petition for Review ), petitioner tendered the amount of P6,000.00, which was more than sufficient payment for the docket fees of the petition. The records do not show that the overpayment of P2,470.00 was ordered returned to petitioner. The amount of overpayment was more than enough for the docket fees for the application of temporary restraining order. Instead of dismissing the Petition for Review, the Court of Appeals could have simply ordered that the same be applied for the docket fees for the application for temporary restraining order.
Another ground for dismissal cited by the Court of Appeals was the failure by petitioner to accompany the Petition for Review with documents and pleadings relevant to the petition, in violation of Section 6 (c), Rule 4334 of the Rules of Court.
While petitioner attached to the Petition for Review the requisite verification and certification against forum shopping, the same did not show that the signatory therein was duly authorized by petitioner. However, the lapse was rectified when petitioner submitted the necessary board resolution and special power of attorney upon the filing of the motion for reconsideration.
With more reason should the instant case be allowed since petitioner did submit a certification against forum shopping, failing only to show proof that the signatory was authorized to do so. In Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals,44 Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo,45 Pascual & Santos Inc. v. The Member of the Tramo Wakas Neighborhood Association, Inc.46 and China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines, Inc.,47 the Court permitted the subsequent submission of proof of authority to sign the certification against forum shopping.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' resolutions dismissing outright the Petition for Review in CA-G.R. SP No. 00082 are SET ASIDE and the case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings and disposition of the appeal on its merits.
3 Id. at 309-310. Penned by J. Normandie B. Pizarro, and concurred in by JJ. Arturo G. Tayag, Chairperson of the Twenty-Second Division, and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.
24 CA rollo, pp. 2-6.
31 Rules of Court, Rule 22, Sec. 1.
32 Rules of Court, Rule 13, Sec. 3. Manner of filing. â€• The filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments and all other papers shall be made by presenting the original copies thereof, plainly indicated as such, personally to the clerk of court or by sending them by registered mail. In the first case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second case, the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case.
33 Philippine National Bank v. Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 153951, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 287, 307.
35 Kalayaan Arts and Crafts, Inc. v. Anglo, 454 Phil. 642, 647 (2003).
36 Diaz v. Mesias, Jr., 468 Phil. 925, 931 (2004).
37 Jaro v. Court of Appeals, 427 Phil. 532, 547 (2002).
38 Uy v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 157851, 29 June 2007, 526 SCRA 73, 86.
39 Shipside Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 404 Phil. 981, 994-995 (2001).
41 Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 391 Phil. 303 (2000); Roadway Express Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 696 (1996); Loyola v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 245 SCRA 477 (1995).
42 Shipside, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 39.
43 Shipside, Inc. v. Court of Appeals. 404 Phil. 981, 996 (2001).
44 404 Phil. 981 (2001).
45 G.R. No. 160455, 9 May 2005, 458 SCRA 325.
46 G.R. No. 144880, 17 November 2004, 442 SCRA 439.
47 G.R. No. 164798, 17 November 2005, 475 SCRA 332.
48 Active Realty Development Corp. v. Daroya, 431 Phil. 753, 760 (2002).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.