Ouano Arraste Service, Inc.

vs Aleonar (October 10, 1991)

Facts: Petitioer’s (and not any particular member or associate of that firm) which firm happens to have a main office in Makati and a branch office in Cebu City.
The court notes that both the main and branch offices operate under one and the same name, Saludo, Ledesma and Associates.
On 12 January 1990, after trial which Atty. Manalo handled for OASI, the trial court rendered a decision holding Mercantile and petitioner OASI jointly and severally
liable for the cost of replacement of the damage equipment plus damages, totaling P435,000.00. Only Mercantile appealed from the decision.
On 19 June 1990. IPI filed a motion for execution of the decision against petitioner OASI which public petitioner’s counsel, through Atty. Catipay of the Cebu Branch
of the LSA, filed a notice of appeal claiming that the decision was “mistakenly sent” by the trial court to the law firm’s Head Office in Makati.
On 27 June 1990, petitioner, through the same counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the writ of execution alleging that the failure
seasonably to file an appeal was due to excusable neglect and slight “oversight” claiming that there was miscommunication between LSA-Cebu and LSA main office
as to who would file the notice of appeal;
Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s appeal upon the grounds that there had been a valid service of the decision and that the decision had become final and
executory as to petitioner OASI
Issue: Whether or not there was valid service of the decision of the trial court upon petitioner’s counsel
Held: Affirmative. Having represented itself to the public as comprising a single firm, LSA should not be allowed at this point to pretend that its main office and
branch office in effect constitute separate law firms with separate and distinct personalities. There was no justification for Atty. Catipay of LSA-Cebu to refuse the
service, especially if, as petitioner now alleges, the notice should have been sent to LSA-Cebu on the theory that Atty. Catipay was the lead counsel. It is not denied
that Atty. Manalo, a partner in LSA based in its Makati main office, received a copy of the decision. Such a receipt binds the LSA Law partnership.
MAXRIO LOUEL ROLLINAS SIMBAJON December 09, 2016
Obligations and Contracts (LAW 111-B) ATTY. SILVIA JO G. SABIO

ASSIGNED CASES DIGEST IN OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

CASE NO. 349
FRANCISCO A. TONGOY ET.AL. VS. COURT OF APPEALS ET.AL.
123 SCRA 99
JUNE 28, 1983; PONENTE: JUSTICE MAKASIAR
Topic: Void or Inexistent Contracts (Art. 1409-1422)
Facts of the Case
This is a case anchored on action for reconveyance of titled land from a simulated contract of conveyance.
Hacienda Pulo were owned by five co-owners who had succeeded it from their late father, three of whom died without issues, Jose, Ana, and Teresa while the other
two, Francisco (have six children from two wives) and Jovita (have four children) have their own.
In 1918, the hacienda was mortgaged by the registered co-owners above mentioned to Phil. Nat’l Bank (PNB) for a loan payable in ten years. In 1935 after having
been in default of the loan, the Hacienda was judicially declared by the Supreme Court for foreclosure in favor of the PNB. Consequently, the co-owners had agreed
in a meeting that to avoid actual seceding from them the hacienda by PNB at their disadvantage, made a simulated transfer of their rights as co-owners to the
newly lawyer Luis Tongoy (legitimate son of Francisco, one of the co-owners), of which was favored by PNB.
Thereafter, Luis Tongoy in twenty years was able to pay off all the obligations with PNB. In 1958, PNB officially released the hacienda from the mortgage. In
February 1966, Luis died leaving his heirs, his son Francisco and his wife.
However, in a month before Luis’ death, Jesus Tongoy Sonora (son of Jovita) demanded from him the return of the shares to all co-owners. Therefore, not long after
Luis’ death the heirs of Jovita (the Sonoras) and Luis’ brothers and illegitimate siblings filed complaints against his son Francisco, as administrator of the estate of
Luis, and his wife pertaining to the interests of the shares and its interest in Hacienda Pulo.
Issue
Is the simulated act of assignment (transfer) of rights of co-ownership made by the co-owners in favor of Luis Tongoy, can be considered as binding between the
parties?