Ouano v aleanor Facts Private respondent International Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(IPI) filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City against Mercantile Insurance Company, Inc. (Mercantile) and petitioner uano !rrastre "ervice, Inc. ( !"I) for replacement of certain e#uipment imported by IPI $hich $ere insured by Mercantile but $ere lost on arrival in Cebu City, allegendy because of mishandling by petitioner !"I. Petitioner !"I%s ans$er $as filed by the la$ firm of &edesma, "aludo and !ssociates (&"!) and signed by !tty. Manuel Trinidad of the Cebu office or branch of &"!. 'o$ever, !tty. (idel Manalo, a partner from the Ma)ati office of &"! filed to postpone the hearing stating that the case had *ust been endorsed to him by petitioner !"I. !fter trial $hich !tty. Manalo handled for !"I, the trial court rendered a decision holding Mercantile and petitioner !"I *ointly and severally liable for the cost of replacement of the damaged e#uipment plust damages, totalling P+,-,....... nly Mercantile appealed from the decision. /hen the IPI filed a motion for e0ecution of the decision against petitioner !"I $hich public respondent granted, the petitioner%s cousel, through !tty. Catipay of the Cebu 1ranch of the &"!, filed a notice of appeal claiming that the decision $as 2mista)enly sent3 by the trial court to the la$ firm%s 'ead ffice in Ma)ati. Petitioner, through the same counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the $rit of e0ecution alleging that the failure to file an appeal $as due to e0cusable neglect and slight 2oversight3 claiming that there $as miscommunication bet$een &"!4Cebu and &"! main office as to $ho $ould file the notice of appeal. The respondent *udge denied !"I%s motion for reconsideration for lac) of merit and ordered that the $rit of e0ecution be enforced. n appeal, the C! dismissed petitioner%s appeal on the grounds that there had been a valid service of the decision and that it $as final and e0ecutor upon !"I. 'ence, petition for revie$ to the Court. Issue /hether or not &"! having represented itself to the public as a single firm, be allo$ed to contend that its main office and its branch office in effect constitute separate la$ firms $ith separate and distinct personalities and responsibilities. Held Petitioner%s counsel $as and is the firm of &edesma, "aludo and !ssociates (and not any particular member or associate of that firm) $hich firm happens to have a main office in Ma)ati and a branch office in Cebu City. The Court notes that both the main and branch offices operate under one and the same name, "aludo &edesma and !ssociates. 'aving represented itself to the public as comprising a

single firm, &"! should not be allo$ed at this point to pretend that its main office and its branch office in effect constitute separate la$ firms $ith separate and distinct personalities.