Title
Cabili vs. Badelles
Case
G.R. No. L-17786
Decision Date
Sep 29, 1962
A 1959 election dispute over Iligan City mayoralty; Badelles challenged Cabili's residency. Appeals dismissed for untimely filing; Supreme Court ruled service invalid, appeal period began upon counsel's receipt.

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

Background of the Case

Following the elections, Cabili was proclaimed as the elected city mayor, succeeding the incumbent Badelles. Subsequently, Badelles initiated legal proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte under Election Case No. 288, claiming that Cabili was not a resident of the city for the required one-year duration before the election and, thus, questioned Cabili’s right to the office through a quo warranto action.

Legal Representation and Notifications

Badelles retained a law firm, San Juan, Africa and Benedieto, with Attorney Jose L. Africa as the senior counsel responsible for the case. For clarity in legal proceedings, Attorney Africa requested that all communications be sent to his office in Manila, which the court officially recognized. A trial ensued, and on December 19, 1959, the Court dismissed the petition.

Judgment and Appeal Process

The court's decision was mailed to Attorney Africa on December 24, 1959, and received on January 4, 1960. Notably, prior to this, on December 28, 1959, Badelles personally requested a copy of the decision, which was provided by the judge. However, Badelles did not sign a receipt for this copy. A telegram informing the law office of the decision's mailing was also sent and received by Attorney Africa on December 29, 1959.

On January 4, 1960, upon receiving the decision, Badelles sent a notice of appeal by registered mail. The following day, January 5, 1960, he filed a notice of appeal along with a cash appeal bond. However, Cabili’s counsel objected, asserting that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory five-day period, as prescribed by the Revised Election Code, and that the bond was insufficient.

Court Dismissals and Certification Petition

On February 15 and 19, 1960, the Court dismissed both appeals for exceeding the statutory limit. In response, a motion for reconsideration from Badelles' counsel was denied, prompting Badelles to file a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals to set aside the dismissals and allow the appeal.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Badelles, deciding on September 30, 1960, that the service of the decision on Badelles directly did not constitute legal service as per the rules. The court determined that the official notification process, which should have taken place through the attorney of record, had not been duly followed. Thus, it ruled that the time period for Badelles’ appeal should start from January 4, 1960, when his counsel received the decision.

Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court was tasked with reviewing the Court of App

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.