Chainani v. Tancinco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Tomas de Vera filed several civil cases for recovery of rentals against Mirchandani, Chainani, and B. Hemandas. Chainani, in his own behalf and as assignee of Mirchandani and B. Hemandas, filed an action against Tomas de Vera for reduction of rentals. The cases were tried jointly. Intervenors, 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 the defendants to pay the rentals. Procedural History: On September 18, 1950, Chainani personally received a copy of the decision. On October 18, 1950, Atty. Antonio Barredo received a copy of the decision for the defendants' attorney of record. Atty. Barredo filed a motion for new trial on November 17, 1950. The intervenors opposed the motion for new trial, while Tomas de Vera moved for execution of the judgment. On April 19, 1951, the court granted the motion for new trial as to Mirchandani and Hemandas but denied it as to Chainani, citing that his 30-day reglementary period, counted from September 18, 1950 (when he personally received the decision), had expired. The court also directed the issuance of a writ of execution against Chainani. The Petition: Chainani instituted the present petition for mandamus to set aside the order denying his motion for new trial and to compel the respondent judge to act on the motion on its merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the 30-day reglementary period for filing a motion for new trial should be computed from the date the petitioner personally received a copy of the decision or from the date the attorney of record received it.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is granted. The order of the respondent Judge denying petitioner's motion for new trial is set aside, and the respondent is directed to act on the motion for new trial on its merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the period must be computed from the date the attorney received the notice. Applying Section 2 of Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, the Court noted that every written notice—which includes a decision—must be served upon the attorney of record if a party has appeared by counsel. The Court held that a notice given to the client and not to his attorney is not a 'notice in law.' It is immaterial that the petitioner volunteered to get the copy from the clerk, as the procedural mandate is designed to ensure the orderly prosecution of cases through competent legal hands. Since the court had not ordered service specifically upon Chainani himself, his personal receipt on September 18 did not trigger the 30-day period. Therefore, the motion for new trial filed on November 17, 1950, was within the reglementary period when counted from the attorney's receipt on October 18, 1950. The Court emphasized the rulings in Notor v. Daza, Palad v. Cui, and Perez v. Isip to maintain a uniform procedure for service of judicial orders.
Main Doctrine
Service of a decision upon a party who has appeared through an attorney of record must be made upon his attorney, and notice to the client and not to his attorney is not a notice in law. The reglementary period for filing a motion for new trial commences from the date of service upon the attorney of record.