CABILI v.

BADELLES
1. Mariano Badelles and Camilo Cabili were
rival candidates for the office of city mayor
of Iligan City. Cabili was elected and
assumed office. Badelles filed before the CFI
an election case questioning Cabilis right to
hold office. He was represented by Atty. Jose
Africa.
2. Atty. Africa requested that all pleadings,
notices, orders and other papers be served
at his office in Manila.
3. Lower court entered judgment dismissing
the petition and it was received at Africas
Manila office on Jan. 4, 160. In the interim,
Badelles, who requested a copy of the
decision, was given a copy on Dec. 28. A
telegram was also sent to the office of Atty.
Africa saying that a copy of the decision was
sent to Badelles; it was received on Jan. 4.
4. Upon receipt of the decision on Jan. 4, Africa
Law office sent a notice of appeal by
registered mail on the same date. Badelles
also filed his own notice of appeal on Jan. 5
with a corresponding cash appeal bond.
5. Counsel of Cabili objected to the appeal on
the ground that it was filed beyond the
period therefor.
6. The court dismissed the appeals filed by
badelles and his counsel on the ground that

they were filed beyond the five-day

statutory period of appeal.
7. Badelles filed a petition for certiorari and
mandamus with the CA. Granted.
a. Receipt by the party of a copy of a
decision and the telegram are not
considered as service of decision
under the rules.
b. The five day period within which to
appeal was to begin when the copy of
the
decision
was
received
by
attorneys for Badelles on Jan. 4 and
not Dec. 28.
ISSUE: WON the notices of appeal filed by
Badelles and his counsel are within the 5day statutory period of appeal.

HELD: YES. CA affirmed.

Rules of court apply to election cases in a
suppletory character whenever practicable
and convenient. As there is no provision in
the Election Law regarding the manner in
which parties should be notified of the
proceedings, pleadings or decisions in
election cases, Section2 rule 27 of the ROC
should apply.
Under sec. 2 rules 27 of the ROC, services of
the decisions should be made to the lawyers
on record, and not to parties. Service of

pleadings is required to be made upon said

attorney and not upon the party. A notice
given to a client and not to his counsel is

not a notice in law. Service upon counsel is

mandatory.