GR L 47645; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47645; April 30, 1941
DOMINGO MABUNAY, plaintiff and appellee, vs. MODESTO BALLEZA, defendant and appellant.
FACTS
The defendant, Modesto Balleza, was sued by Domingo Mabunay in the Municipal Court of Iloilo City for the collection of attorney’s fees. Balleza was ordered to pay. Dissatisfied, Balleza appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. Upon the case being docketed in that court, the clerk, in compliance with Act No. 3171 , notified the parties of this fact by registered mail. The notification addressed to the defendant was received by his lawyer. The defendant-appellant failed to file a demurrer or an answer to the complaint within the reglementary period. He was declared in default, and after the plaintiff presented his evidence, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo rendered judgment, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of eighty-four pesos (P84) as attorney’s fees, plus costs. The appellant argues that the appealed judgment is null and void because he was not duly summoned, invoking Article 392, Nos. 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Act No. 3171 .
ISSUE
Whether the notification sent to the defendant’s lawyer, upon the docketing of the appealed case in the Court of First Instance, constitutes sufficient notice and renders a formal summons unnecessary.
RULING
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s contention. Act No. 3171 clearly provides that once an appealed case is docketed, the same complaint filed in the justice of the peace court is deemed reproduced before the Court of First Instance, and it is the clerk’s duty to notify the parties by registered mail. The law does not speak of a summons; it states “notify the parties by registered mail.” This notification refers not to the complaint (which is deemed reproduced) but to the fact of the case’s docketing in the Court of First Instance. Therefore, in such cases, a formal summons is not necessary. Furthermore, regarding the notification being made to the defendant’s lawyer, the jurisprudence in this jurisdiction provides abundant cases upholding the doctrine that when, in a case, a party or parties are represented by lawyers, notification made to said lawyers is deemed notification to the parties themselves. Consequently, the appealed judgment was affirmed in all its parts, with costs in both instances against the appellant.