G.R. No. L-4782 February 29, 1952
B.S. CHAINANI, petitioner, vs. HON. TIBURCIO TANCINCO, ETC. ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Tomas de Vera filed separate civil cases for recovery of rentals against B.S. Chainani, Mirchandani, and B. Hemandas. Chainani, also acting as assignee of the other two, filed an action against de Vera for rental reduction. The cases were jointly tried. Intervenors Mary Burke Desbarats and Ewald E. Selph (as executor) claimed ownership of the building. On September 14, 1950, the court dismissed Chainani’s complaint and ordered Chainani, Mirchandani, and Hemandas to pay rentals to de Vera. On September 18, 1950, Chainani personally obtained a copy of the decision from the clerk of court. Later, on October 18, 1950, Atty. Antonio Barredo received another copy of the same decision on behalf of the defendants’ attorney of record, Jesus G. Barrera, signing the receipt “For the defendants, J.G. Barrera by A. Barredo.” The attorney of record for all three defendants was Jesus G. Barrera of the firm Barrera, Calanog and Alafriz. On November 17, 1950, a motion for new trial was filed, signed by “BARRERA, CALANOG and ALAFRIZ and ANTONIO BARREDO By: (Sgd.) ANTONIO BARREDO.” The court, on April 19, 1951, granted the motion for new trial for Mirchandani and Hemandas but denied it for Chainani. It ruled that Chainani’s 30-day reglementary period for filing a motion for new trial began on September 18, 1950 (when he personally received the decision), and had thus expired. The court ordered execution against Chainani, prompting this mandamus petition.

ISSUE

Whether the 30-day reglementary period for filing petitioner Chainani’s motion for new trial should be computed from the date he personally received a copy of the decision (September 18, 1950) or from the date his attorney of record (through Atty. Barredo) received a copy (October 18, 1950).

RULING

The reglementary period should be computed from October 18, 1950, when Atty. Barredo received a copy of the decision on behalf of the petitioner’s attorney of record. Under Section 2, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, service of “every written notice” (which includes a decision) upon a party who has appeared by an attorney must be made upon the attorney, unless the court orders service upon the party himself. Since petitioner Chainani was represented by Atty. Barrera, and there was no court order for service upon Chainani personally, his personal receipt of the decision on September 18, 1950, was not a valid notice in law. The Court cited precedents (Palad vs. Cui; Notor vs. Daza; Perez vs. Isip) holding that notice to the client and not to the attorney is not notice in law. The purpose of the rule is to maintain uniform procedure and ensure the orderly prosecution of a case through competent counsel. The Court found it immaterial that Chainani volunteered to get the copy. Furthermore, Atty. Barredo’s authority to receive the copy and file the motion was established, particularly by Atty. Barrera’s subsequent motion confirming Atty. Barredo’s appearance and supporting the motion for new trial. Consequently, the motion for new trial filed on November 17, 1950, was within the 30-day period from October 18, 1950. The order denying Chainani’s motion for new trial was set aside, and the respondent judge was directed to act on the motion on its merits.