G.R. No. 28679 , February 2, 1928
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO YCASIANO, ANTONIO OPISSO, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and THE SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

Francisco Ycasiano, a tenant of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, sued the Archbishop for damages after being ousted from the leased land before the lease term expired. The Court of First Instance rendered judgment in favor of Ycasiano. The Archbishop’s counsel, the law firm Feria & La O, filed a motion for a new trial. The trial judge denied the motion by writing “Overruled” on the motion itself. Notice of this denial was served by leaving a copy with Leonardo Abola, an assistant attorney in the office of Feria & La O, who had previously signed and filed an exception to the judgment on behalf of the firm. Abola did not inform the principal attorneys, Feria or La O, of the notice. Consequently, the Archbishop’s counsel failed to appeal within the reglementary period. The Archbishop filed this petition for certiorari, arguing that the service of notice was invalid because it was not made personally upon the parties or their counsel of record as required by the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether the service of notice of the order denying the motion for a new trial upon Leonardo Abola, an assistant attorney in the law firm representing the petitioner, constituted valid personal service upon counsel.

RULING

No, the petition for certiorari is denied. The Supreme Court held that the service was valid. While the Rules of Court required personal service of notices of orders upon the parties or their attorneys, the service on Leonardo Abola qualified as personal service on counsel. Abola, as an assistant attorney in the firm of Feria & La O, had previously appeared in the case by signing and filing an exception to the judgment on behalf of the firm and their client. By authorizing him to act in the case, the firm made him their agent for purposes related to the case, including the acceptance of service of notices. The principle *qui facit per alium facit per se* (he who acts through another acts himself) applies. Personal service upon a duly authorized agent of counsel is equivalent to service upon counsel themselves. The Court noted that while the petitioner may have had a meritorious case for appeal, the failure to perfect the appeal on time was attributable to the invalid service argument, which it rejected. The Court suggested that the petitioner might have explored other remedies, such as that under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for relief from judgment), and criticized the practice of inquiring about court rulings from a stenographer instead of the clerk of court.