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 Mirchandani, Chainani, and B. Hemandas. Chainani, also acting as assignee of Mirchandani and Hemandas, filed an action against Tomas de Vera for reduction of rentals. The court tried the four cases jointly. Intervenors Mary Burke Desbarats and Ewald E. Selph, as owners of the building and lessors of Tomas de Vera, filed a complaint in intervention. On September 14, 1950, the court rendered a decision dismissing Chainani’s complaint and ordering Chainani, Mirchandani, and Hemandas to pay the rentals. On September 18, 1950, Chainani personally received a copy of the decision from the clerk of court. On October 18, 1950, Atty. Antonio Barredo received another copy of the same decision from the clerk, signing the receipt “For the defendants, J.G. Barrera by A. Barredo.” The attorney of record for the three defendants was Jesus G. Barrera. On November 17, 1950, Atty. Barredo filed a motion for new trial, signed by “BARRERA, CALANOG and ALAFRIZ and ANTONIO BARREDO.” The intervenors opposed the motion, while Tomas de Vera moved for execution. On April 19, 1951, the court granted the motion for new trial as to Mirchandani and Hemandas but denied it as to Chainani, ruling that his 30-day reglementary period for filing a motion for new trial, counted from September 18, 1950 (when Chainani personally received the decision), had expired. The court also directed issuance of a writ of execution against Chainani, prompting the present petition for mandamus.

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 Supreme Court ruled that the reglementary period should be computed from October 18, 1950, when Atty. Barredo received a copy of the decision on behalf of the attorney of record. Section 2 of Rule 27 of the Rules of Court mandates that when a party has appeared by an attorney, service shall be made upon the attorney unless the court orders service upon the party himself. The Court cited precedents (Palad vs. Cui, Notor vs. Daza, Perez vs. Isip) establishing that a notice given to the client and not to the attorney is not a notice in law. Chainani’s personal receipt of the decision on September 18, 1950, was not a valid notice as there was no court order for service upon the party himself. The purpose of the rule is to maintain uniform procedure and place the orderly prosecution of a case in competent hands. The Court rejected the contention that Atty. Barredo was unauthorized to receive the copy, noting his authority was confirmed by Atty. Barrera’s subsequent motion. Consequently, the motion for new trial filed on November 17, 1950, was within the 30-day period from October 18, 1950. The order of April 19, 1951, denying Chainani’s motion for new trial was set aside, and the respondent judge was directed to act on the motion on its merits.