Facts:

The case revolves around B. S. Chainani (petitioner) and Hon. Tiburcio Tancinco, along with other respondents. Civil Case No. 6353 commenced in the Court of First Instance of Manila, initiated by Tomas de Vera who sought to recover rentals from Mirchandani and Chainani, while the latter and another party, Hemandas, countered with action for the reduction of rentals. The matters were tried together. Mary Burke Desbarats and Ewald E. Selph intervened as owners of the property and lessors to Tomas de Vera. On September 14, 1950, the court ruled against Chainani, dismissing his complaint and ordering payment of the rentals claimed by de Vera. Chainani received a copy of the decision directly on September 18, 1950, after which Atty. Antonio Barredo, representing J. G. Barrera (the attorney of record for the defendants), also obtained a copy of the decision. Subsequently, Atty. Barredo, on November 17, 1950, filed a motion for a new trial on behalf of the defendants. This motion met w

...

Facts:

Procedural Background

• Tomas de Vera initiated actions in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking recovery of rentals against various respondents in multiple civil cases:
• Civil Case No. 6353 against Mirchandani
• Civil Case No. 6354 against Chainani
• Civil Case No. 6355 against B. Hemandas
• Chainani, acting on his own behalf and as assignee of both Mirchandani and B. Hemandas, concurrently filed an action against Tomas de Vera for reduction of rentals.
• The court consolidated the four cases for trial.
• Mary Burke Desbarats and Ewald E. Selph (the latter as executor of Dr. W. J. B. Burke’s estate) intervened in the litigation, asserting ownership of the building involved and their status as lessors to Tomas de Vera.

Decision and Subsequent Events

• On September 14, 1950, the trial court rendered a decision:
• Dismissing Chainani’s complaint for reduction of rentals
• Directing that the defendants (Chainani, Mirchandani, and Hemandas) pay the rentals demanded by Tomas de Vera
• Chainani personally procured a copy of this decision from the Clerk of Court on September 18, 1950.
• On October 18, 1950, Atty. Antonio Barredo, acting in the name of Chainani’s attorney of record (J. G. Barrera), obtained a copy of the decision, signing the receipt as “For the defendants, J. G. Barrera by A. Barredo.”
• Atty. Barredo later formally appeared in the case when he filed a motion for a new trial on November 17, 1950, under the signatory block:

"BARRERA, CALANOG & ALAFRIZ and ANTONIO BARREDO By: (Sgd.) ANTONIO BARREDO Attorneys for the defendants 5th Floor, Pilipinas Bldg., Manila"

The Controversial Order and Its Basis

• On April 19, 1951, the trial court issued an order:
• Granting the motion for a new trial with respect to defendants Mirchandani and Hemandas
• Denying the motion as to Chainani on the ground that his 30‑day reglementary period had expired, computed from his personal receipt of the decision on September 18, 1950.
• Directing the issuance of a writ of execution against Chainani.
• Chainani subsequently filed a petition for mandamus before the Supreme Court challenging this order.

Service of Notice and Applicable Legal Provisions

• Section 2 of Rule 27 of the Rules of Court mandates that service of every written movement, notice, or decision should be made upon the attorney(s) of record if a party is represented, barring a specific court order for personal service.
• The case of Notor vs. Daza and related precedents (Palad vs. Cui and Perez vs. Isip) clarified that:
• "Every written notice" encompasses judicial decisions.
• Valid legal notice requires service upon the attorney of record, not merely on the client.
• The pivotal factual point was whether Atty. Barredo’s receipt of the decision on behalf of petitioner’s attorney constituted valid service, thus affecting the commencement of the 30‑day period for filing a motion for new trial.

Issue:

The central issue in the case is whether the 30‑day reglementary period for filing Chainani’s motion for new trial should be computed from:

• The date Chainani personally received a copy of the decision (September 18, 1950), or
• The date on which Atty. Barredo, on behalf of petitioner's attorney of record, received the copy of the decision.

Secondary issue considered involves:

• The proper mode of service under Section 2 of Rule 27 of the Rules of Court when a party is represented by counsel.
• The legal effect of a notice given to the client versus one served on the attorney as the designated representative.

An ancillary issue raised by respondent Tomas de Vera:

• The contention that Atty. Barredo may not have been properly authorized to receive the copy of the decision on behalf of Chainani’s attorney (J. G. Barrera) and the implications of that on the computation of the reglementary period.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)