Elli v. Ditan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs Juan Elli and Maria Elli instituted a Forcible Entry case against defendants Juan Ditan and Marcial Bronola in the Justice of the Peace Court of Bacon, Sorsogon. The Justice of the Peace Court rendered a judgment ordering the defendants to return the land, restore possession to the plaintiffs, and pay damages and attorney's fees. Procedural History: Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal. The record was received by the Court of First Instance (CFI). A Notice of Appealed Case was sent to the parties. Despite receipt, the defendants failed to file an Answer in the CFI, which was deemed reproduced. The CFI declared the defendants in default. After hearing, the CFI rendered a judgment ordering the defendants to vacate the premises, return possession, and pay damages. The Petition: Defendants received copies of the CFI decision. They filed a Motion to Reconsider, contending that the reason for their failure to file an Answer was the lack of notice to their counsel, arguing that service should have been made upon their attorney. The CFI denied the motion, stating that notice to the party was sufficient and that no summons was necessary in appeals from Justice of the Peace Courts. The defendants appealed this order.
Issue(s)
Whether notice of the receipt of an appealed case from the Justice of the Peace Court to the Court of First Instance must be served upon the attorney of record when a party is represented by counsel, or if notice to the party themselves is sufficient to trigger the period for filing an Answer.
Ruling
The Court set aside the Order appealed from and remanded the case for further and appropriate proceedings. No costs were awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that service must be made upon the attorney when a party is represented by counsel. The Court reasoned that under Rule 27, Section 2, every written notice and similar paper must be served upon the parties, but if a party has appeared by an attorney, service must be made upon the attorney unless the court orders otherwise. The Court clarified that while Rule 40, Section 7 explicitly directs the clerk to notify 'the parties' of the reproduction of the complaint upon appeal, this does not mean the clients themselves if they are already represented by counsel. The Court observed that the term 'parties' is used because litigants in the Justice of the Peace Court (JPC) are frequently unrepresented and appear in their own behalf. However, applying the doctrine in Palad v. Cui (28 Phil. 44), the Court emphasized that where a party appears by an attorney, all subsequent notices must be given to the attorney, and a notice given to the client is not a notice in law. Consequently, the defendants in this case could not be considered in default because the notice of the appealed case was never legally served upon their counsel of record.
Main Doctrine
In appeals from the Justice of the Peace Court to the Court of First Instance, once a party appears by counsel, all subsequent notices and processes must be served upon the attorney, and service upon the party himself is not considered valid service in law. Failure to serve notice upon the attorney renders a subsequent declaration of default void.