GR L 18941; (January, 1963) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18941. January 31, 1963. GERTRUDES MATA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. RITA LEGARDA, INC., defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Plaintiffs Gertrudes and Conrado Mata filed an action for specific performance against Rita Legarda, Inc., seeking to compel the execution of a deed of absolute sale for two lots or, alternatively, to obtain rescission and damages. After the defendant failed to appear at the initial hearing on August 8, 1957, the trial court rendered a default judgment against it. The court later granted the defendant’s motion to set aside this default order and scheduled a new hearing for January 16, 1958. Upon defendant’s motion, citing its counsel’s hospitalization for a major operation, the hearing was rescheduled to February 18, 1958.
When the case was called on February 18, 1958, no one appeared for the defendant. Consequently, the trial court reinstated its original default decision. The defendant promptly filed a verified motion for reconsideration, supported by affidavits of merit. These affidavits established that the notice for the February 18 hearing was not served on the defendant’s attorney of record, Atty. Mariano G. Bustos, who was still hospitalized. Instead, the notice was served on an employee of the defendant corporation at its office.
ISSUE
Whether the service of the notice of hearing upon an employee of the defendant corporation, instead of upon its attorney of record, is valid and binding, thereby rendering the reinstated default judgment valid.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court anchored its ruling on the mandatory procedural requirement under Section 2, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court. This rule explicitly provides that when a party appears by an attorney, service of all pleadings, motions, notices, and other papers must be made upon said attorney, unless the court orders service upon the party personally. The purpose is to ensure that legal communications are channeled through the professional representative responsible for handling the case.
The Court emphasized that notice to the party itself, when it is represented by counsel, is not notice in law unless specifically ordered by the court. In this case, the notice for the February 18 hearing was served on a corporate employee, Jose de la Paz, and not on the attorney of record. Since the required service upon counsel was not effected, the attorney and, consequently, his client were not legally bound by the proceedings that took place. The default judgment rendered under these circumstances was therefore void, as it violated the defendant’s fundamental right to due process. The affidavits of merit further demonstrated a meritorious defense, justifying the setting aside of the judgment to allow the case to be heard on its merits.