Cabili v. Badelles Digest

Facts:

1. Elections of November 10, 1959, Respondent Badelles and Petitioner Cabili were rival candidates for the office of city mayor of Iligan City. Cabili was proclaimed elected and thereafter assumed office, succeeding Badelles the incumbent.

2. Thereafter, Badelles filed a case for quo warranto, questioning Cabili's right to hold the office on the ground that the latter was not a resident of the City for at least one year prior to his election. The petition was filed by the law firm of San Juan, Africa and Benedicto, as counsel for Badelles. Badelles was also represented by several other lawyers but the senior counsel was Atty. Africa, who, in the initial hearing, explained that he is the one in charge of the case, and therefore, requested that all pleadings, notices, orders and other papers be served at his office at 480 Padre Faura St., Manila. In order to avoid any confusion in the service of pleadings and orders, he made of record that only service at the given address will be considered as service on petitioner Badelles and counsel. The Court took note of said request of Attorney Africa.

3. The lower court dismissed the petition with copy of the decision sent to the office address of Atty. Africa and was received the same day. It appears however, that, in the interim, i.e. on December 28, 1959, Badelles, who was then in Iligan City, requested the judge for a copy of the decision. Badelles, was given a copy but refused to sign a receipt therefor. The judge ordered his court interpreter to record the fact of said delivery of a copy to Badelles. This order was complied with. The judge also telegraphed the law office of Atty. Africa in Manila that copy of the decision was sent to them on December 1959 and that petitioner Badelles personally was furnished a copy also on that same day. The telegram was received by Atty. Africa on December 29, 1959.

4. Upon receipt of the decision on January 4, 1960, the Africa Law Office, counsel for Badelles, sent a notified appeal by registered mail on the same date. On January 5, 1960, Badelles filed his own notice of appeal to with a corresponding cash appeal bond of sixty pesos.  The Counsel for Cabili objected to the appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the period. 

5. On February 15 and 19, 1960, respectively, the court dismissed the appeals filed by Badelles and his counsel on the ground that the same were filed beyond the five-day statutory period for appeal, as provided in Section 178 of the improvised Election Code.  A motion for reconsideration filed by counsel for Badelles was denied for lack of merit, so Badelles filed the petition for certiorari and mandamus in CA to annul said orders. CA granted.

Issue: Whether or not the service to the client was valid

NO. 

1. In accordance with the provisions of Rule 27, Section 2, service of decisions should be made to the lawyers on record and not to parties. In a long line of decisions, the Court have held that when a party appears by an attorney who makes of record his appearance, service of pleadings is required to be made upon said attorney and not upon the party

2. A notice given to the client and not to his attorney is not a notice in law and that service upon a party who has an attorney of record is not a compliance with Rule 27, Sec. 2, which makes service upon counsel mandatory; and that personal information by a party of the rendition of a decision does not satisfy the right of counsel to receive a copy of the decision rendered.