Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17786)
Facts:
Camilo P. Cabili and the Hon. Manuel Estipona, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Petitioners, vs. Mariano Ll. Badelles and Hon. Court of Appeals, Respondents, G.R. No. L-17786, September 29, 1962, Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court.In the November 10, 1959 elections, Mariano Ll. Badelles and Camilo P. Cabili were rival candidates for mayor of Iligan City; Cabili was proclaimed winner and assumed office. Badelles filed Election Case No. 288 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Lanao del Norte seeking quo warranto on the ground that Cabili lacked the one-year residency required for elective city office. Badelles was represented by the law firm of San Juan, Africa and Benedieto, with Attorney Jose L. Africa as senior counsel and designated service address at 480 Padre Faura St., Manila; this designation was made of record in the CFI.
After trial the CFI rendered judgment dismissing Badelles’s petition on December 19, 1959. A copy of the decision was mailed by registered air mail to Atty. Africa’s office on December 24, 1959 and was received there on January 4, 1960. In the interim, however, Badelles personally requested and was furnished a copy of the decision at Iligan City on December 28, 1959; he refused to sign a receipt, and the judge caused this delivery to be noted by the court interpreter and notified Atty. Africa by telegram the same day; the telegram was received December 29, 1959.
Upon receipt at counsel’s office on January 4, 1960, the Africa Law Office sent a notice of appeal by registered mail the same day; Badelles himself filed a notice of appeal on January 5, 1960 together with a cash appeal bond of sixty pesos. Counsel for Cabili objected that the appeals were filed beyond the five-day appeal period prescribed by Section 178 of the Revised Election Code and that Badelles’s P60 bond was insufficient. On February 15 and 19, 1960 the CFI dismissed the appeals as late and for insufficiency of bond; a motion for reconsideration was denied.
Badelles petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari and mandamus (CA-G.R. No. 27428‑R) to annul the CFI orders and direct the CFI to give due course to the appeal. On September 30, 1960 the CA granted the petition, holding that personal receipt by the party did not constitute service on counsel, that the telegram did not supply the decision’s contents and thus was not service, and that the five-day appeal period therefore began when counsel actually received the copy on January 4, 1960. The CFI’s dismissal was annulled and the appeal ordered given due course.
Petitioners brought the CA decision to this Court by appeal by cer...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Badelles’s personal receipt of a copy of the decision on December 28, 1959 constitute legal service that started the five‑day appeal period under Section 178 of the Revised Election Code?
- Could the telegram sent to Atty. Africa be treated as service of the decision such that the appeal period began upon receipt of the telegram?
- Were the appeals filed by the Africa Law Office and by Badelles timely and therefore required to be given due course despite the CFI's dismissal for...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)