G.R. No. L-17786 - Cabili vs. Badelles

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17786)

Factual Background

In the November 10, 1959 elections, Mariano Ll. Badelles and Camilo P. Cabili were rival candidates for Mayor of Iligan City, and Cabili was proclaimed elected and assumed office. Badelles filed Election Case No. 288 in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, invoking quo warranto on the ground that Cabili lacked the one-year residency required prior to election. Counsel of record for Badelles was the law firm of San Juan, Africa and Benedieto, with Attorney Jose L. Africa designated as senior counsel and authorized to receive all pleadings, notices, orders and other papers at his Manila office at 480 Padre Faura Street; the trial court took note of that designation.

Trial Court Proceedings and Service

After trial the lower court rendered judgment dismissing Badelles’s petition on December 19, 1959. A copy of the decision was sent by registered air mail on December 24, 1959 to the Africa law office and was received there on January 4, 1960. Meanwhile, on December 28, 1959, Badelles, who was in Iligan City, requested and was furnished a copy of the decision by the judge but refused to sign a receipt; the court interpreter was ordered to record the delivery. The judge on the same day telegraphed the Africa law office informing counsel that the decision had been sent on December 24 and that Badelles had personally been furnished a copy; counsel received the telegram on December 29, 1959.

Timeliness Dispute and Dismissal

Upon receipt of the decision on January 4, 1960, the Africa law office sent a notice of appeal by registered mail that same date. On January 5, 1960, Badelles filed his own notice of appeal and posted a cash appeal bond of sixty pesos. Counsel for Cabili objected that the appeals were untimely. The trial court, on February 15 and 19, 1960, dismissed the appeals on the ground that they were filed beyond the five-day statutory period under Section 178 of the Revised Election Code and further held that the sixty pesos bond was insufficient. A motion for reconsideration by counsel for Badelles was denied.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

Badelles petitioned the Court of Appeals by certiorari and mandamus to annul the trial court’s dismissal and to give due course to the appeal. The Court of Appeals granted the petition on September 30, 1960. The Court of Appeals held that the copy of the decision given personally to Badelles in advance did not constitute the requisite service for purposes of the appeal period, that the telegram to counsel did not constitute service because it did not contain the contents of the decision, and that the five-day appeal period therefore began when counsel received the mailed copy on January 4, 1960.

Issues Presented on Review

The principal issue for review was whether the receipt by Badelles personally of a copy of the decision on December 28, 1959 or the judge’s telegram to counsel on that date started the five-day appeal period under Section 178 of the Revised Election Code, or whether service of the decision to counsel of record on January 4, 1960 controlled the running of the appeal period.

Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Badelles contended that as the aggrieved party authorized to appeal under Section 178 of the Revised Election Code, he was likewise authorized to receive a copy of the decision and that his personal receipt should therefore be deemed service that started the appeal period. Cabili and the trial judge maintained that service must be made on counsel of record in accordance with the practice embodied in Rule 27, Section 2, Rules of Court, applied suppletorily to election cases where practicable.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the petition. The Court held that personal receipt of a copy of the decision by the party did not satisfy the requirement of service upon counsel of record and that the telegram to counsel, which did not include the contents of the decision, likewise did not constitute service. The Court therefore approved the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the five-day appeal period commenced when counsel received the mailed copy on January 4, 1960.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reasoned that although the Rules of Court do not govern election cases generally, they operate suppletorily when practicable and convenient. In the absence of a statutory mode of notification in the Election Code, the Court followed Rule 27, Section 2, which requires service of decisions upon lawyers of record. The Court relied on

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-17786)

Parties and Posture

Camilo P. Cabili and the Hon. Manuel Estipona, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, were the petitioners in this appeal by certiorari.
Mariano Ll. Badelles and Hon. Court of Appeals were the respondents defending the Court of Appeals' order.
The Court of Appeals had ordered the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte to give due course to an appeal filed by Mariano Ll. Badelles in Civil Case No. 288 entitled "Badelles vs. Cabili."
The Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeals' decision on the petition for certiorari and mandamus.

Facts

In the November 10, 1959 elections, Mariano Ll. Badelles and Camilo P. Cabili were rival candidates for Mayor of Iligan City, and Camilo P. Cabili was proclaimed and assumed office.
Mariano Ll. Badelles filed Election Case No. 288 for quo warranto in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte alleging that Camilo P. Cabili lacked the required one-year residency.
The law firm of San Juan, Africa and Benedieto represented Badelles, and senior counsel Jose L. Africa made of record that all pleadings and decisions were to be served at his office at 480 Padre Faura St., Manila.
The lower court rendered judgment dismissing the petition on December 19, 1959, and a copy of the decision was mailed by registered airmail to counsel on December 24, 1959.
Badelles personally requested and received a copy of the decision in Iligan City on December 28, 1959, but he refused to sign a receipt and the delivery was noted by the court interpreter.
The trial judge telegraphed Jose L. Africa on December 28, 1959 advising that a copy had been sent and that Badelles had been furnished a copy, and the telegram was received on December 29, 1959.
The Africa law office received the mailed copy on January 4, 1960 and on that same date forwarded a notice of appeal by registered mail.
Badelles filed his personal notice of appeal on January 5, 1960 together with a cash appeal bond of sixty pesos.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the appeals on February 15 and 19, 1960 on the ground of late filing beyond the five-day period prescribed by Section 178 of the Revised Election Code and on the ground of insufficient bond.
Badelles filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of Appeals, docketed CA-G. R. No. 27428-R, which granted the petition and ordered due course to be given to the appeal.

Procedural History

The Court of First Instance dismissed the quo warranto petition on December 19, 1959.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the appeals of Badelles and his counsel on February 15 and 19, 1960.
The Court of Appeals granted Badelles' petition for certiorari and mandamus in CA-G. R. No. 27428-R.
The Supreme Court reviewed and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Issues Presented

Whether personal rece