Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > December 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3466 December 29, 1906 - MEYER HERMAN v. A. S. CROSSFIELD

007 Phil 259:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3466. December 29, 1906. ]

MEYER HERMAN, Petitioner, v. A. S. CROSSFIELD, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, AND RUBERT AND GUAMIS, Respondents.

Thos. D. Aitken, for Petitioner.

Ney & Bosque, for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. JUDGMENT; ORDER OF COURT; CERTIORARI. — After the term at which judgment was rendered, a Court of First Instance made an order opening the case for the introduction of additional evidence, the motion therefor having been made and argued during said term. Held, That such order was not void because made after the close of said term and that it could be reviewed on certiorari.

2. ORDER OF COURT; FINAL JUDGMENT. — A order opening a case after judgment for the introduction of additional evidence is not a final judgment from which an appeal can be taken.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


On the 8th day of March, 1906, in an action pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila in which Rubert and Guamis were the plaintiffs and Meyer Herman was the defendant, a final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. On the 14th day of March of the same year the plaintiffs made a motion for a new trial on the ground that the findings of the court were plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. It does not appear that any order was made upon this motion. On the 26th day of March the plaintiffs made another motion asking that the decision be set aside and that the case be opened for the purpose of taking the testimony of Dr. Altman, and for such other proceedings as the court might deem just and equitable. Notice was given that this motion would be heard on the 31st day of March, which was the last day of the term of court. Nothing appear to the contrary, we assume that the motion was argued on that day. It was not decided, however, until the 14th day of April, and after the term at which the judgment had been entered had and closed. The order then made was that the case be reopened for the purpose of receiving the testimony of Dr. Altman, the court saying in its order that there was no showing that this evidence was newly discovered. On the 12th day of July, 1906, the defendant in the case in the court below, Meyer Herman, commenced this original action of certiorari in this court, claiming that the order made in the court below on the 14th day of April was void because at that time that court had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide a motion for a new trial, the term at which the judgment was entered having expired.

The defendants in this original action have demurred to the complaint and the case is now before the court for the resolution of the demurrer.

The contention of the plaintiff that at the expiration of the term the court was without jurisdiction to entertain or decide a motion for a new trial can not be sustained in view of the decision of this court in the case of Santos v. Villafuerte 1 (4 Off. Gaz., 359).

In that case and other cases cited therein, it was held that the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to entertain and decide a motion for a new trial after the term at which the decision was rendered had expired. The ruling announced in those cases disposes of this case.

Whether the order made on the 14th of April was right or wrong is not before us for decision. The court had jurisdiction to decide the motion, even if it were a motion for a new trial, a point which we do not determine. If it decided it incorrectly, the plaintiff, who was the defendant in that case, had the right to except to the order and, although he could not bring the case here at once for decision because the order was not a final judgment, yet he could do so after final judgment had been entered and could then have the order in question reviewed.

The demurrer is sustained and the plaintiff is allowed ten days from the notification of the order in which to amend his complaint. If no amended complaint is presented within that time of the clerk will, without further order from this court, enter final judgment in this case in favor of the defendants, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Johnson, J., dissents.

Endnotes:



1. 5 Phil. Rep., 739.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2242 December 1, 1906 - HOUSTON B. PAROT v. CARLOS GEMORA

    007 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-2530 December 3, 1906 - ORDER OF DOMINICANS v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    007 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-2718 December 4, 1906 - JOSE EMETERIO GUEVARA v. HIPOLITO DE OCAMPO

    007 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 2800 December 4, 1906 - FRANK S. BOURNS v. D.M. CARMAN ET AL.

    007 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-2923 December 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO PALMADRES

    007 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-3009 December 4, 1906 - FELICIDAD BUSTAMANTE v. CRISTOBAL BUSTAMANTE

    007 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3534 December 4, 1906 - TO GUIOC-CO v. LORENZO DEL ROSARIO

    007 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-2671 December 5, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO POBLETE

    007 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. L-2704 December 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FEDERICO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-1952 December 6, 1906 - CARLOS GSELL v. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE

    007 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-2746 December 6, 1906 - MATEO CARIÑO v. TINSULAR GOVERNMENT

    007 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-2921 December 6, 1906 - LUCAS GONZALEZ v. ROSENDO DEL ROSARIO

    007 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-3022 December 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SEBASTIAN LOZANO

    007 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3429 December 6, 1906 - CASTLE BROS. v. GO-JUNO

    007 Phil 144

  • G.R. Nos. L-2472 & 2473 December 7, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CORTES

    007 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-2803 December 7, 1906 - DAMASA ALCALA v. FRANCISCO SALGADO

    007 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-2890 December 7, 1906 - VALENTINA PALMA v. JORGE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    007 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. L-2929 December 7, 1906 - FAUSTA BATARRA v. FRANCISCO MARCOS

    007 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. L-3006 December 7, 1906 - JOSE GONZALEZ v. AGUSTIN BAÑES

    007 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. L-3062 December 7, 1906 - MARIA MAGALLANES v. TEODORA CAÑETA

    007 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. L-3078 December 7, 1906 - FERNANDO PEREZ v. JUAN GARCIA BOSQUE

    007 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3495 December 7, 1906 - JAMES J. RAFFERTY v. JUDGE OF THE CFI FOR THE PROV. OF CEBU, ET AL.

    007 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-2777 December 10, 1906 - MARIA CASAL v. EMILIO MORETA

    007 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-2532 December 11, 1906 - IN RE MACARIO ADRIOATICO

    007 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-2787 December 11, 1906 - CELSO DAYRIT v. GIL GONZALEZ

    007 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-3010 December 11, 1906 - JULIAN TUBUCON v. PETRONA DALISAY

    007 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-3050 December 11, 1906 - LUIS SANTOS v. SILVESTRE DILAG

    007 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-3117 December 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO ADRIATICO

    007 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-2766 December 12, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PAULO CABAMNGAN

    007 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-3094 December 12, 1906 - FRED SPARREVOHN v. EMIL M. BACHRACH

    007 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. L-2828 December 14, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SOLIS

    007 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-3204 December 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FLAVIANO SALANATIN

    007 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2855 December 19, 1906 - FLEMING, ET AL. v. LORCHA "NUESTRA SRA. DEL CARMEN

    007 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-2757 December 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CHAN LIM ALAN

    007 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-2908 December 20, 1906 - ANTONIO TORRES Y ROXAS, ET AL. v. RAMON B. GENATO (Intervenor)

    007 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. L-3119 December 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO CAGAOAAN

    007 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-3093 December 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO MANABAT

    007 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-2541 December 26, 1906 - IGNACIO ICAZA v. RICARDO FLORES

    007 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. L-1999 December 27, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MANUEL

    007 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. L-2765 December 27, 1906 - JOSE DOLIENDO v. DOMINGO BIARNESA

    007 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-3249 December 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE FLOR MATA

    007 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. L-2395 December 29, 1906 - DOROTEO CORTES v. DY-JIA AND DY-CHUANDING

    007 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-2825 December 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PAUL A. WEEMS

    007 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-2916 December 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE OROSA

    007 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-2966 December 29, 1906 - NICOLAS CONCEPCION TAN TACO v. VICENTE GAY

    007 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-3120 December 29, 1906 - BRYAN v. AMERICAN BANK

    007 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-3466 December 29, 1906 - MEYER HERMAN v. A. S. CROSSFIELD

    007 Phil 259