Cardona Galarza v. Ortega

68 P.R. 611
CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico
DecidedApril 22, 1948
DocketNo. 9738
StatusPublished

This text of 68 P.R. 611 (Cardona Galarza v. Ortega) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cardona Galarza v. Ortega, 68 P.R. 611 (prsupreme 1948).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Todd, Jr.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellee prays for the dismissal of this appeal on the ground that the notice of appeal was served on his attorney by mail and not personally, despite the fact that said attorney as well as appellant’s have their offices at San Juan and Santurce, respectively. He invokes §§ 320 and 321 of the [612]*612Code of Civil Procedure 1 and cases from this Court to the effect that the service should be made personally on an attorney who resides in the same city, Asencio v. Heirs of Rodríguez, 49 P.R.R. 8; Santana v. Salinas, 54 P.R.R. 109; otherwise, this Court does not acquire jurisdiction for lack of a proper service.

The appellant opposes the dismissal sought. He admits that he served the notice by mail, and not personally,, on appellee’s attorney, but that in doing so he complied with Rule 5(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. In our opinion he is correct. The Rule provides:

“(b) Service: How Made. — Whenever under these rules service is required or permitted to be made upon a party represented by an attorney the service shall be made upon the attorney unless service-upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Service upon the attorney or upon a party shall be made by delivering a copy to him or by mailing it to him at his last known address or, if no address, is known, by leaving it with the clerk of the court. Delivery of a copy within this rule means: handing it. to the attorney or to the party; or leaving it at his office with his clerk or other person in-charge thereof; or, if there is no one in charge, or, if the office is' closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at his dwelling [613]*613house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable ago and discretion residing therein. Service by mwil is complete upon mailing.” (Italics ours.)

As to those actions and proceedings to which the new rules are applicable 2 under Buie 81(a), Buie 5(b) substitutes the procedure formerly established by § 321, supra, and authorizes service by mail on the attorney of the adverse party without the former limitation that the person making the service and the person served had to reside or have their offices at different places, that is, in different cities or municipalities, according to the construction given to the words “different places” in Quintero v. Morales, 19 P.R.R. 1120; Gascón v. Alvarez, 28 P.R.R. 339; Marxuach v. Acosta, 35 P.R.R. 582. Since this limitation has been rejected, it is plain that the service made is valid and the dismissal sought does not lie.

Commenting on Federal Buie 5(b), similar to ours, Moore says:

“Service of pleadings and other papers, other than those required to be served upon a party in the same manner as a summons,3 may be made by mail . . . When a party is represented by more than one attorney of record, service upon any one of them is sufficient.
“It should be noted that the last sentence of Rule 5(b) provides that service by mail is complete upon mailing. This is significant. Non-receipt of the paper does not affect the validity of the service.” 1 Moore’s Federal Practice 376.

Since appellee was properly served, the motion for dismissal is overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 P.R. 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardona-galarza-v-ortega-prsupreme-1948.