GERTRUDES MATA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. RITA LEGARDA, INC., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from two orders issued by the Court of First
Instance of Manila, the Hon. Higinio B. Macadaeg, presiding, one dated
April 30, 1958 denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration, and
another order dated February 18, 1958 which reinstated the decision of
said court rendered on August 14, 1957 .

Plaintiffs Gertrudes Mata and Conrado Mata brought this action in
the Court of First Instance of Manila against Rita Legarda, Inc., to
compel the latter to execute a deed of absolute sale in their favor of
Lot No. 29, Block No. RP-20, and Lot No. 11, Block PE-4, both forming
one residential lot 150 square meters, and to deliver to them a
certificate of title covering the lots, and in the alternative to
condemn defendant to pay to them the sum of P4.293.91 with legal
interest, and to pay the costs.

Defendant’s answer admitted some of the allegations of the
complaint and denied others. It alleged that it has yet no title to one
of the lots and “that should the time come when the vendee (defendant)
have fully paid for the price of the whole lot, and it shall in the
meantime transfer only the title for lot 29, of Block RP-20 and that as
to the other, Lot 11 of Block PE-4, the defendant shall forthwith
transfer title thereto upon the issuance of its own title for Block
PE-4.”

The case was set for hearing on August 8, 1957 and as the defendant
failed to appear the plaintiffs were allowed to present their evidence ex parte.
Wherefore judgment was rendered by default ordering the latter to
execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of the plaintiffs and to
deliver the certificate of title within 30 days, but that upon failure
of the defendant to do so the contract shall be rescinded and defendant
ordered to pay P4,293.91, plus interest at the rate of 6%, to pay
plaintiffs damages and attorney’s fees in the sum of P1,000, and pay
the costs.

Defendant moved that the decision be reconsidered and the same be
set aside. This motion was granted and the court set the case for
another hearing on January 16, 1958 . But on January 14, 1958 ,
defendant filed an urgent motion to transfer the, hearing for any day
after February 15, 1958 on the ground that its counsel was confined in
a hospital preparatory to a major operation. The lower court granted
the motion and set the hearing of the case anew for February 18, 1958 .

But when the case was again called for hearing as scheduled, nobody
appeared for defendant, so the lower court reinstated its decision
dated August 14, 1957 . Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration
and for setting the decision aside, duly verified and supported by six
affidavits to the effect that the notice of hearing was never received
either by Atty. Mariano G. Bustos, its attorney of record, who was
still sick in the hospital, or by any one in his law office and said
notice was expressly and specifically received by one Jose de la Paz
for and on behalf of Rita Legarda, Inc.

The motion for reconsideration dated March 21, 1958 and its
accompanying affidavits of merits show that on January 24, 1958 ,
defendant’s attorney of record, Atty. Mariano G. Bustos, was still in
the hospital in a serious condition, having been operated on of cancer
of the intestines, as attested to by his attending physician (pp.
64-65, ROA); that on the same date, at about 5:30 p.m., the deputy
sheriff of Manila served the notice of hearing to one Jose de la Paz,
an employee of the defendant-appellant corporation; that said employee
received said notice in the office of the defendant-appellant for and
in behalf of the latter, and that the attorney of record was never
notified of the scheduled hearing until after the hearing was finished.

The rule is that services of orders or notices of hearing should be
made to the attorney of record himself or to his employee at his office.

“Notice of trial should be served upon attorney of
record.—Appellants contend that the notice of trial should have been
sent to them, and not to their attorney alone, in view of Sec. 3 of
Rule 31 of the Rules of Court which provides that ‘upon entry of a case
in the corresponding trial calendar the dork shall fix a date for trial
and shall cause a notice thereof to be served upon the parties,’ This
rule is obviously inconsistent with See. 2 of Rule 27 because the term
‘parties’ used In Sec. 3 of Rule 31 is a general sense and does not
exclude the application of Sec. 2 of Rule 27 to a situation where the
party is represented by an attorney.” (Martinez, et al. vs. Martinez, et al., 90 Phil 697, Jan, 23, 1952)

“Under the Rules of Court (Rule 27, Sec. 2), once a party appears of
record by attorney, service of pleadings, notice etc. is to be made
upon the attorney, not the party, * * *” (Vivero vs. Santos , 98 Phil. 500; 52 Off. Gaz. 1424, Feb. 28, 1956 , L-3105.)

“Under Sec. 2 of Rule 27, requiring that service upon a party be made
‘upon his attorneys or one of them, unless service upon the party
himself is ordered by the court,’ notice to the party himself, unless
ordered by the court, and not upon the attorney who has appeared in his
behalf, is not notice in law.” (Perez vs. Araneta, G.R. No. L-11788, May 16, 1958 ; Visayan Surety & Insurance Corp. vs. Central Bank of the Philippines , 104 Phil., 562.)

Considering that the notice of the hearing was not served on the
attorney as required by the Rules, the proceedings taken against him at
the hearing of which he was not notified, do not bind him nor his
client.

Wherefore the orders appealed from are hereby set aside and the
case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings. Without
costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.