Bpi-Family Savings Bank v. The Honorable Court of Appeals

Summary

This Supreme Court case addresses the critical procedural requirement of proper service of court documents on counsel versus client representatives. BPI Family Savings Bank's lease dispute with tenant spouses escalated when the bank was declared in default for counsel's failure to appear at pre-trial. The key issue arose when the trial court computed the appeal period from service on the bank's postal representative rather than actual service on counsel. The Supreme Court applied the PLDT v. NLRC precedent, emphasizing that service must be made on the lawyer at their exact address, not on unauthorized client representatives. The Court found that service on Reynaldo Quintos, though the bank's authorized postal representative, was invalid service on counsel since he lacked authority from the law firm. This landmark decision reinforces the strict procedural requirements for service of process and protects the right to appeal by ensuring proper notice to counsel of record.