Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Ycasiano
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose when Francisco Ycasiano, a tenant of The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, was ousted from a parcel of land before the expiration of his lease. This occurred after the Archbishop sold the land, which included Ycasiano's leased parcel, to the Manila Railroad Co. Ycasiano subsequently sued the Archbishop for damages due to this premature ouster. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Ycasiano, awarding him P4,620 in damages. 2. Procedural History: Following the Court of First Instance's judgment on August 7, 1926, in favor of Ycasiano, the Archbishop's attorneys, Feria & La O, filed an exception. Subsequently, on September 4, 1926, they filed a motion for a new trial. This motion was denied on the same day, September 11, 1926. Notice of this denial was served on September 13, 1926, by leaving a copy with Leonardo Abola, an assistant attorney in the Feria & La O office. Abola did not inform his principals of the notice, and they remained unaware of the denial until December 9, 1926, when Ycasiano moved for execution of the judgment. 3. The Petition: The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to set aside the order of the respondent Judge. The petitioner's core argument is that the notice of the denial of the motion for a new trial was not validly served according to the Rules of the Court of First Instance. They contend that personal service requires actual delivery to the party or their counsel, and delivery to an assistant attorney who failed to notify the principal counsel constitutes invalid service. Consequently, they argue the judgment had not become final, preserving their right to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the service of notice of the denial of a motion for a new trial upon an assistant attorney in the law office of the aggrieved party's counsel constitutes valid personal service. Whether the judgment in the original case had become final.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. The Court found that the service of notice upon Leonardo Abola was valid, and consequently, the judgment had become final.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the service of notice upon Leonardo Abola was valid personal service. Abola was an assistant attorney in the law office of Feria & La O, the counsel for the petitioner, and had even signed an exception to the judgment on behalf of the firm. The Court applied the principle of qui facit per alium, facit per se, stating that since Feria & La O had authorized Abola to appear and act in their behalf and for their client, they could not deny his authority to accept service of the notice. Personal service on an authorized agent of counsel is considered sufficient personal service on the counsel themselves. To hold otherwise would lead to "embarrassing complications" and would not be "good sense nor good law." On Issue 2: Because the service of notice of the denial of the motion for a new trial upon Abola was deemed valid, the Court concluded that the judgment had become final. The petitioner's contention that the judgment had not become final due to alleged invalid service was therefore rejected. The Court expressed regret that it could not grant the petition, suggesting that the petitioner might have fared better by availing themselves of the remedy under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by making inquiries about the ruling from the clerk of court instead of the stenographer.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that service of notice of the denial of a motion for a new trial upon Leonardo Abola, an assistant attorney in the law firm representing the petitioner and who had signed an exception to the judgment, constituted valid personal service. This is because Abola, by virtue of his role and actions in the case, could be considered an agent of the principal counsel, Feria & La O. The principle of qui facit per alium, facit per se applies, meaning the principal counsel, having authorized Abola to act in their behalf, cannot deny his authority to accept service. Therefore, the notice was validly served, and the judgment became final.