(49) G.R. No.

130348 September 3, 2007

MIGUEL SORIANO, JR. and JULIETA SORIANO, petitioners,

vs.
ANTERO SORIANO and VIRGINIA SORIANO, respondents.

FACTS: This case involves an action for ejectment filed by the respondents against the
petitioners. The subject of the controversy is the 420 square meter parcel of land in Las Piñas
City which was leased by the respondents to the petitioners. Alleging violation of the terms and
condition of the contract of lease, the respondents filed a complaint for ejectment against the
petitioners before the MeTC of Las Piñas on February 24, 1994.

On 15 April 1996, the MeTC decided the case in favor of respondents. On appeal to the RTC, the
assailed decision was affirmed in toto on 3 April 1997. On 17 April 1997 the petitioners moved for
the reconsideration of the RTC decision. On 6 May 1997, the RTC denied the petitioners' motion
for reconsideration.

On 28 May 1997, petitioners received a copy of the aforesaid denial. On the other hand,
petitioners' counsel received a copy of the same on 2 June 1997. On 6 June 1997, from the
adverse decision of the RTC, petitioners' counsel went on to file a motion for extension of time to
file petition for review before the CA. On 18 June 1997, petitioners filed the petition for review
before the CA.

Meanwhile, on 20 June 1997, the RTC granted the respondents' Motion for Execution of
Judgment.

On 18 August 1997, the appellate court rendered a Decision denying the petition for review for
being filed out of time.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for review filed before the CA was filed out of time.

RULING: The Supreme Court held that the petition before the Court of Appeals was timely filed.

Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, the general
rule is, where a party appears by attorney in an action or proceeding in a court of record, all
notices required to be given therein must be given to the attorney of record; and service of the
court's order upon any person other than the counsel of record is not legally effective and binding
upon the party, nor may it start the corresponding reglementary period for the subsequent
procedural steps that may be taken by the attorney. Notice should be made upon the counsel of
record at his exact given address, to which notice of all kinds emanating from the court should be
sent in the absence of a proper and adequate notice to the court of a change of address.

Notice of the denial of petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the RTC's decision, served upon
the Rico & Associates Law Office, was the formal notice to petitioners. For all legal intents and
purposes, the service of that notice was the trigger that started the running of the remaining five-
day reglementary period within which to file the petition to the appellate court or, at the very least,
a motion for extension of time to file said pleading.

Considering the prior disquisition, therefore, petitioners are deemed to have received a copy of
the subject denial by the RTC of their motion for reconsideration on 2 June 1997 when their
counsel of record, Rico & Associates Law Office, received the same. The remaining five-day
period within which to file the petition with the appellate court should have been counted from that
date. The last day, therefore, was 7 June 1997. Clearly, the petition interposed before the Court
of Appeals on 6 June 1997 was filed in due time.

Otherwise, to consider the operative date of receipt of the RTC Order denying petitioners' motion
for reconsideration to be 28 May 1997 -- when said order was received by petitioner Atty. Miguel
Soriano, Jr., who albeit appeared as a collaborating counsel as well -- is to violate Section 2 of
Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. As amended, that provision states that when party is represented
by counsel, service of process must be made on counsel and not on the party.