Dujon v. Villarosa
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Benjamin Dujon initiated a lawsuit against Hieroteo Villarosa in the municipal court of Bacolod City seeking the recovery of a sum of money. The defendant, Hieroteo Villarosa, filed an answer to the complaint, represented by counsel. 2. Procedural History: Following a decision against the appellant in the municipal court, the case was appealed to the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. The clerk of the Court of First Instance sent a notice of docketing via registered mail to the appellant himself, not to his counsel. The appellant failed to retrieve the notice from the post office. Subsequently, the appellee filed a motion for default, which was granted by the Court of First Instance. After receiving the appellee's evidence, the court rendered a decision in favor of the appellee, ordering the appellant to pay a specific sum, interest, attorney's fees, and costs. The appellant's motions for reconsideration were denied, leading to the present appeal. 3. The Petition: The appellant argues that the notice of the case's docketing in the Court of First Instance should have been served on his counsel, not directly on him, citing relevant rules and jurisprudence. He contends that the notice sent to him personally was legally insufficient, as he was represented by counsel. The appellant is appealing the decision of the Court of First Instance, asserting that the order of default and the subsequent judgment were erroneously issued due to improper notice.
Issue(s)
Whether the service of notice to the appellant himself, rather than his co-counsel, was valid under the Rules of Court. Whether the trial court erred in issuing an order of default and rendering judgment against the appellant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision, ordering double costs against the appellant. The Court found no error in the issuance of the order of default and the subsequent judgment against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the service of notice to the appellant was valid and in strict conformity with the Rules of Court. Under Section 2 of Rule 27, if a party is represented by an attorney or attorneys, service must be made upon the attorneys or one of them. In this case, the appellant, Hieroteo Villarosa, is a lawyer who specifically signed his own answer in the municipal court jointly with Atty. Jose Y. Hilado. By doing so, Villarosa appeared not only as a party but also as one of the attorneys of record for his own defense. Therefore, the notice sent to him by the clerk of the Court of First Instance (CFI) reached "one of the attorneys" as required by the law. The Court emphasized that notice to one of the counsel is sufficient notice to the party, and Villarosa’s dual status as a litigant and lawyer made him a valid recipient of the service. On Issue 2: The Court held that the trial court did not err in declaring the appellant in default. Since the notice of docketing was validly served on the appellant as an attorney of record, the period for filing an answer began to run. The appellant's failure to retrieve the registered mail from the post office, despite receiving the standard three notices, constituted negligence that did not invalidate the service. Consequently, when no answer was filed within the reglementary period, the appellee's motion for default was procedurally sound and the trial court was justified in granting it. The Court further remarked that the present appeal was frivolous, especially considering the appellant's profession as a lawyer, which warranted the imposition of double costs to discourage the misuse of judicial processes.
Main Doctrine
Notice of the docketing of an appealed case in the Court of First Instance must be served on the counsel of record, especially when the party himself is also an attorney, and service upon the party himself is not a valid substitute for service upon his counsel unless so ordered by the court.