[ G.R. No. L-5183, December 29, 1952 ]
BENJAMIN DUJON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. HIEROTEO VILLAROSA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
There is no dispute as to the fact that notice of the docketing of the case in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, on appeal from the municipal court of Bacolod City, was sent by registered mail to the appellant who, however, failed to get the notice from the post office notwithstanding the usual three notices served on him, and that no notice whatsoever was sent to Atty. Jose Y. Hilado. It is insisted for the appellant that, inasmuch as he was represented by counsel in the municipal court, the notice of the clerk of the court of first instance regarding the docketing of the appealed case in his court, should have been served on his counsel, the notice to the appellant himself not being a notice in law, under section 2 of Rule 27 of the Rules of Court and the cases of Palad vs. Cui, 28 Phil., 44, and Esquivas vs. Sison, 61 Phil. 211.
Even assuming that section 2 of Rule 27 is applicable, and without deciding whether, under section 7 of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, requiring the clerk of the court of first instance "to notify the parties" of the docketing of the appealed case, the notice may be sent to the parties themselves, though represented by counsel, it is clear that the trial court did not err in issuing the order of default and in rendering the subsequent judgment against the appellant, because in the municipal court the appellant filed and signed his answer jointly with Atty. Jose Y. Hilado as counsel for and in his own behalf. The notice sent to him by the clerk of the court of first instance was therefor patently in conformity with section 2 of Rule 27, requiring that if a party has appeared by an attorney or attorneys, service upon him shall be made upon his attorneys or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. The frivolity of the present appeal should be very apparent to the appellant, a lawyer.
Wherefore, the appealed decision is affirmed, and it is so ordered with double costs against the appellant.Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.