Facts:

The case involves petitioners Lourdes Aldecoa, Barbara Zamora, and Augusto E. Salazar against respondents Hon. Francisco Arellano, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch I, and Pedro G. Siguenza. The events leading to this case began on March 25, 1958, when Judge Arellano rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 4352, titled "Pedro G. Siguenza vs. Lourdes Aldecoa, Barbara Zamora, and Augusto E. Salazar." The court ordered the petitioners to pay Siguenza the amount of P7,500, with interest from the date of the complaint, plus P1,000 for attorney's fees. On March 29, 1958, a court stenographer attempted to serve a copy of the decision to Atty. Jose Macasa, the counsel for the petitioners, who refused to accept it. The clerk of court then tried to serve the decision to Carlos Macasa, Atty. Macasa's brother, but he also refused, insisting that it should be delivered to Atty. Macasa personally. Consequently, the decision was sent to Atty. ...

Facts:

1. Background of the Case:

   • On March 25, 1958, Judge Francisco Arellano of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 4352, ordering petitioners Lourdes Aldecoa, Barbara Zamora, and Augusto E. Salazar to pay Pedro G. Siguenza the sum of P7,500 with interest and P1,000 as attorney's fees.

2. Service of the Decision:

   • On March 29, 1958, a court stenographer attempted to serve a copy of the decision to Atty. Jose Macasa, counsel for the petitioners, but he refused to accept it.
   • On the same day, the clerk of court attempted to serve the decision to Carlos Macasa, Atty. Macasa's brother, who also refused to accept it, stating it should be delivered to Atty. Macasa personally.
   • The decision was then sent to Atty. Macasa by registered mail. The first registry notice was sent on March 31, 1958, but Atty. Macasa failed to claim the registered letter.
   • Second and third notices were sent on April 7 and 17, 1958, respectively. The letter was eventually claimed by Carlos Macasa on April 26, 1958.

3. Motion for Execution and Appeal:

   • On May 8, 1958, Siguenza moved for the execution of the decision.
   • On May 19, 1958, petitioners filed their notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal, which Siguenza objected to.
   • Petitioners filed an opposition to the motion for execution on May 23, 1958.
   • On June 5, 1958, the court granted Siguenza's motion for execution and dismissed the petitioners' appeal, ruling that it was not perfected within the reglementary period.

4. Appeal to the Court of Appeals:

   • Petitioners appealed the June 5, 1958 order on July 17, 1958, but Siguenza objected, and the appeal was dismissed on July 26, 1958.
   • Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on August 9, 1958.
   • On September 17, 1958, petitioners filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Court of Appeals, seeking to direct the respondent judge to give due course to their appeal.
   • The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on April 28, 1959, prompting the petitioners to appeal to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

Issue:

• The sole issue in this case is whether the petitioners' appeal in Civil Case No. 4352 was filed within the reglementary period.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)